welovetrump--2020-12-18--It’s About Time: Georgia’s Secretary Of State Announces Signature Matching Review For The Entire Sta

It’s About Time: Georgia’s Secretary Of State Announces Signature Matching Review For The Entire State

At least this is a start .
After weeks of President Trump and other Patriots calling out Georgia ’ s Secretary of State and Governor Kemp to conduct a signature matching audit for mail-in ballots , it looks like it might happen soon .
Secretary of State Brad Raffensperger just announced that the University of Georgia along with the secretary ’ s office will be conducting random samplings of ballots in each county .
The main concern is will there be allowed anyone from outside the University of Georgia and the secretary ’ s office to overwatch the process ?
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ Trump was asking for but could lead to it very soon .
News Max covered the story and released these details : Georgia ’ s secretary of state has relented and announced a statewide signature-matching effort for the November election .
President Donald Trump ’ s campaign claimed voter fraud and has requested that Secretary of State Brad Raffensperger order such an audit since the election ended .
Signatures for absentee ballots in all of Georgia ’ s 159 counties will be reviewed , per The Washington Times .
The University of Georgia @ @ @ @ @ @ @ office to analyze a random sampling of signatures from each county for mail-in ballots during the November election , a Thursday press release said .
The audit is expected to wrap up in two weeks .
The Washington Times chipped in too : Georgia officials on Thursday conceded to requests for a statewide check of signatures on mail-in ballots after President Trump repeatedly asked for the study .
Georgia Secretary of State Brad Raffensperger announced the review of absentee ballots in all 159 counties , saying the move is an attempt to rebuild @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Despite endless lawsuits and wild allegations from Washington , D.C. pundits , we have seen no actual evidence of widespread voter fraud , though we are investigating all credible reports , ” he said .
“ Nonetheless , we look forward to working with the University of Georgia on this signature match review to further instill confidence in Georgia ’ s voting systems.
” The review comes less than three weeks before the state ’ s Senate runoff elections on Jan. 5 , which will determine which party holds the majority in the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ : Please add your name and a prayer to support our President !
Hopefully , this isn ’ t a stunt by Raffensperger to appease Republicans and just say “ look we did it ” .
Another question is will Raffensperger appoint liberals professors to handle the signature match review ?

We may receive compensation from affiliate partners for some links on this site. Read our full Disclosure here
5,256 views
At least this is a start.
After weeks of President Trump and other Patriots calling out Georgia’s Secretary of State and Governor Kemp to conduct a signature matching audit for mail-in ballots, it looks like it might happen soon.
Secretary of State Brad Raffensperger just announced that the University of Georgia along with the secretary’s office will be conducting random samplings of ballots in each county.
The main concern is will there be allowed anyone from outside the University of Georgia and the secretary’s office to overwatch the process?
This isn’t the homerun ball Trump was asking for but could lead to it very soon.
Georgia's Secretary of State has announced a statewide ballot audit https://t.co/o9ZtrUm8zn pic.twitter.com/UKhl8ZyF8d — Newsmax (@newsmax) December 18, 2020
BREAKING: Georgia Conducting Statewide ‘Signature Match Review’ Of Absentee Ballots https://t.co/dyBHQt9PvK Great! How about we do Arizona next? — Arizona Republican Party (@AZGOP) December 17, 2020
News Max covered the story and released these details:
Georgia’s secretary of state has relented and announced a statewide signature-matching effort for the November election. President Donald Trump’s campaign claimed voter fraud and has requested that Secretary of State Brad Raffensperger order such an audit since the election ended. Signatures for absentee ballots in all of Georgia’s 159 counties will be reviewed, per The Washington Times. The University of Georgia will partner with the secretary’s office to analyze a random sampling of signatures from each county for mail-in ballots during the November election, a Thursday press release said. The audit is expected to wrap up in two weeks.
Glad to see signature audit beginning in Georgia for mail-in votes. However, many believe Fulton and Clayton counties are the most suspect, not Cobb. Hopefully they will be included. https://t.co/eST7f0bXbN — Lindsey Graham (@LindseyGrahamSC) December 17, 2020
FINALLY! After weeks & weeks of pressure, GA’s secretary of state announced a statewide signature match review. https://t.co/5uNkKq3elM — #ThePersistence (@ScottPresler) December 17, 2020
The Washington Times chipped in too:
Georgia officials on Thursday conceded to requests for a statewide check of signatures on mail-in ballots after President Trump repeatedly asked for the study. Georgia Secretary of State Brad Raffensperger announced the review of absentee ballots in all 159 counties, saying the move is an attempt to rebuild trust in the election process. BOOKMARK IT: Check Out My New Site, NoahReport.com! “Despite endless lawsuits and wild allegations from Washington, D.C. pundits, we have seen no actual evidence of widespread voter fraud, though we are investigating all credible reports,” he said. “Nonetheless, we look forward to working with the University of Georgia on this signature match review to further instill confidence in Georgia’s voting systems.” The review comes less than three weeks before the state’s Senate runoff elections on Jan. 5, which will determine which party holds the majority in the upper chamber.
FLASH: Georgia to Conduct Statewide ‘Signature Match Review’ Of Absentee Ballots https://t.co/kcOtdr2hER — Neanderthal Scholar Poso (@JackPosobiec) December 17, 2020
Hopefully, this isn’t a stunt by Raffensperger to appease Republicans and just say “look we did it”.
Another question is will Raffensperger appoint liberals professors to handle the signature match review?
I guess time will tell.


welovetrump--2020-12-18--China Officials Involved In Organ Harvesting Are About To Receive Sanctions From The U.S.

Yes , you read that right .
What you ’ re about to read is absolutely shocking but at least some US lawmakers are trying to make a difference .
The organs of marginalized groups detained in Chinese prison camps are being forcefully harvested most of the time when the prisoners are still alive .
The most targeted people were mostly from the religious group called Falun Gong other groups that were targeted were Tibetans , Uighur Muslims , and some Christian sects .
A bipartisan group of U.S. lawmakers has just now introduced the Stop Forced Organ Harvesting Act @ @ @ @ @ @ @ state-sanctioned practice of harvesting organs from marginalized groups and religious prisoners .
The Epoch Times covered the recent piece of legislation introduced by lawmakers : A bipartisan group of U.S. lawmakers has introduced legislation in both chambers of Congress to stop China ’ s state-sanctioned practice of harvesting organs from prisoners of conscience .
“ There is growing evidence that the Chinese Communist Party has and continues to harvest organs from prisoners and members of Chinese religious groups , ” Sen. Tom Cotton ( R-Ark . )
said in a statement from his @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Forced Organ Harvesting Act of 2020 , proposes sanctions for individuals involved in forced organ harvesting and organ trafficking .
It was introduced in the Senate by Cotton on Dec. 15 ( S.5016 ) , and in the House ( H.R.8972 ) by Reps. Chris Smith ( R-N.J. ) and Tom Suozzi ( D-N.Y. ) .
China has been one of the top destinations for transplant tourism , while Beijing has promoted its narrative in U.S. newspapers that organs are sourced from voluntary donations .
Amid allegations Chinese Communist Party doctors are harvesting @ @ @ @ @ @ @ 1 billion industry , American lawmakers are seeking to sanction the CCP for the “ egregious ” human rights abuses .
“ There is growing evidence that the Chinese Communist Party has and continues to harvest organs from prisoners and members of Chinese religious groups , ” Sen. Tom Cotton , R-Ark.
, said Wednesday , announcing the Stop Forced Organ Harvesting Act .
“ This bill will identify and punish CCP members involved in forced organ harvesting .
“ It ’ s past time to hold Beijing accountable for these heinous acts.
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ London , NBC News reported , Chinese doctors harvest organs from detainees in Chinese prison camps — sometimes while patients are still alive — for sale in a market worth $ 1 billion a year .
NATIONAL POLL : Should President Trump Fire All Obama Holdovers ?
YES or NO Here ’ s a documentary that dives deep into organ harvesting in China :

We may receive compensation from affiliate partners for some links on this site. Read our full Disclosure here
3,577 views
Yes, you read that right.
What you’re about to read is absolutely shocking but at least some US lawmakers are trying to make a difference.
The organs of marginalized groups detained in Chinese prison camps are being forcefully harvested most of the time when the prisoners are still alive.
The most targeted people were mostly from the religious group called Falun Gong other groups that were targeted were Tibetans, Uighur Muslims, and some Christian sects.
A bipartisan group of U.S. lawmakers has just now introduced the Stop Forced Organ Harvesting Act of 2020 to combat China’s state-sanctioned practice of harvesting organs from marginalized groups and religious prisoners.
“It’s past time to hold Beijing accountable for these heinous acts.” A bipartisan group of US lawmakers introduced the “Stop Forced Organ Harvesting Act of 2020,” to stop #China’s state-sanctioned practice of #OrganHarvesting from prisoners of conscience. https://t.co/NeZUnmkI5C — The Epoch Times – China Insider (@EpochTimesChina) December 17, 2020
"How do we get the Chinese Communist Party to stop the killing of innocents for their organs? One way is surely to shine a light on what they are doing." Rights lawyer welcomes US bill that would sanction officials involved in organ harvestinghttps://t.co/Gfuivm0CuH — Cathy He (@CathyHe_ET) December 17, 2020
You have to be a world class moron or a liar to claim that "the Chinese government isn't evil incarnate" They have religious minorities in concentration camps where they are subjected to organ harvesting. They murdered 65 million of their own people to gain power. https://t.co/gPndtDiP8t — Ryan Saavedra (@RealSaavedra) December 13, 2020
https://twitter.com/iheartmindy/status/1338143796052291585
The Epoch Times covered the recent piece of legislation introduced by lawmakers:
A bipartisan group of U.S. lawmakers has introduced legislation in both chambers of Congress to stop China’s state-sanctioned practice of harvesting organs from prisoners of conscience. “There is growing evidence that the Chinese Communist Party has and continues to harvest organs from prisoners and members of Chinese religious groups,” Sen. Tom Cotton (R-Ark.) said in a statement from his office. The legislation, the Stop Forced Organ Harvesting Act of 2020, proposes sanctions for individuals involved in forced organ harvesting and organ trafficking. It was introduced in the Senate by Cotton on Dec. 15 (S.5016), and in the House (H.R.8972) by Reps. Chris Smith (R-N.J.) and Tom Suozzi (D-N.Y.). China has been one of the top destinations for transplant tourism, while Beijing has promoted its narrative in U.S. newspapers that organs are sourced from voluntary donations.
"Amid allegations #CCPChina doctors are harvesting organs from prison camps in a $1 billion industry, American lawmakers are seeking to sanction the CCP for the "egregious" human rights abuses"#China #Genocidehttps://t.co/4cEMo6kV42 https://t.co/wGSpplv8Kp — Veronica (@VeronicaMelelli) December 17, 2020
Newsmax covered the story too:
Amid allegations Chinese Communist Party doctors are harvesting organs from prison camps in a $1 billion industry, American lawmakers are seeking to sanction the CCP for the “egregious” human rights abuses. “There is growing evidence that the Chinese Communist Party has and continues to harvest organs from prisoners and members of Chinese religious groups,” Sen. Tom Cotton, R-Ark., said Wednesday, announcing the Stop Forced Organ Harvesting Act. “This bill will identify and punish CCP members involved in forced organ harvesting. “It’s past time to hold Beijing accountable for these heinous acts.” According to an international tribunal in London, NBC News reported, Chinese doctors harvest organs from detainees in Chinese prison camps — sometimes while patients are still alive — for sale in a market worth $1 billion a year.
Here’s a documentary that dives deep into organ harvesting in China:


welovetrump--2020-12-19--RED ALERT:  “Vote Democrat, Get $1,200” Vans Spotted All Over Georgia

HOW IS THIS LEGAL ?
I was not aware you could promise to pay $ 1,200 for every vote , @ @ @ @ @ Or at least you can REALLY make it look like you are .
In fact @ @ @ @ @ only real they are proudly featured on a website called GetBidenBucks.com .
Now maybe we @ @ @ @ @ in Georgia… .
I wonder if they ’ re using all that Zuckerberg money to @ @ @ @ @ .
You even have Georgian citizens Tweeting to their leader Stacey Abrams asking if it @ @ @ @ @ : It all comes from a website called GetBidenBucks.com .
The site looks like this @ @ @ @ @ making it sound like you get $ 1,200 cash if you vote for Biden , @ @ @ @ @ the character of the Grinch .
I ’ m sure they have no right to @ @ @ @ @ what has ever stopped DemonRats from doing anything before ?
These people are OUT OF @ @ @ @ @ tolerating this ?
Someone should go to jail .

We may receive compensation from affiliate partners for some links on this site. Read our full Disclosure here
45,256 views
HOW IS THIS LEGAL?
I was not aware you could promise to pay $1,200 for every vote, but apparently you can!
Or at least you can REALLY make it look like you are.
These pictures are real.
In fact, they’re not only real they are proudly featured on a website called GetBidenBucks.com.
Take a look:
It’s a PAC – still not legal pic.twitter.com/cuRcW9Ra3p — AZWildcat1997 (@AZWildcat1997) December 18, 2020
https://twitter.com/TruthShalom/status/1340082520105365504
Now maybe we see what’s happening in Georgia….
I wonder if they’re using all that Zuckerberg money to pay for each $1,200.
You even have Georgian citizens Tweeting to their leader Stacey Abrams asking if it’s “legit”:
https://twitter.com/Livneon/status/1340096050212823048
It all comes from a website called GetBidenBucks.com.
The site looks like this:
It’s apparently funded by “relationPAC”.
Not only are they making it sound like you get $1,200 cash if you vote for Biden, they have also apparently stolen the character of the Grinch.
I’m sure they have no right to use that image, but what has ever stopped DemonRats from doing anything before?
These people are OUT OF CONTROL.
Why are we tolerating this?
Someone should go to jail.


welovetrump--2020-12-19--Do You Know How Many Times Martial Law Has Been Declared In The United States?

We ’ ve been talking a lot about Martial Law here at WeLoveTrump over the past few weeks .
To be fair , it hasn ’ t just been us .
MANY people are talking about it .
Does it seem “ far fetched ” ?
Seem like it couldn ’ t possibly actually happen ?
Well , you might be surprised to learn exactly how many times it HAS already happened in the history of our country .
According to some , the count is 64 times !
Still others like the Brennan Center ( no , not THAT @ @ @ @ @ @ @ August 20 , 1942 , military police in Honolulu , Hawaii , arrested a man named Harry White .
Under normal circumstances , the U.S. military would not have been involved in his case .
He was a stockbroker , not a soldier , and neither he nor his business had any connection with the armed forces .
Even his alleged crime — embezzlement of funds from a client — was a violation of civilian , not military , law .
But nothing about Hawaii was normal in 1942 .
It had been @ @ @ @ @ @ @ on Pearl Harbor in December 1941 .
Its courts were closed and replaced with military tribunals .
The rules governing everyday life were set not by an elected legislature but by the military governor .
The army controlled every aspect of life in the islands , from criminal justice to parking zones and curbside trash removal .
White was brought before a military provost court .
His attorney objected to the court ’ s jurisdiction , requested a jury trial , and asked for time to prepare a defense .
But Major Murrell @ @ @ @ @ @ @ these motions .
Instead , just five days after being arrested , White was tried without a jury , convicted , and sentenced to five years in prison .
As White ’ s story illustrates , martial law — a term that generally refers to the displacement of civilian authorities by the military — can be and has been employed in the United States .
Indeed , federal and state officials have declared martial law at least 68 times over the course of U.S. history .
footnote5_2j98s6h5 Yet the concept has never been @ @ @ @ @ @ @ mention martial law , and no act of Congress defines it .
The Supreme Court has addressed it on only a handful of occasions , and the Court ’ s reasoning in these decisions is inconsistent and vague .
The precedents are also old : the most recent one — in which the Court overturned Harry White ’ s conviction — was decided almost 75 years ago .
This report aims to clear up the confusion that surrounds martial law .
To do so , it draws on recent legal scholarship , the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Supreme Court precedent , and general principles of constitutional law .
It concludes that under current law , the president lacks any authority to declare martial law .
Congress might be able to authorize a presidential declaration of martial law , but this has not been conclusively decided .
State officials do have the power to declare martial law , but their actions under the declaration must abide by the U.S. Constitution and are subject to review in federal court .
Outside of these general principles , there are many questions that simply @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and confusing legal precedent .
Moreover , although lacking authority to replace civilian authorities with federal troops , the president has ample authority under current law to deploy troops to assist civilian law enforcement .
Until Congress and state legislatures enact stricter and better-defined limits , the exact scope of martial law will remain unsettled , and the president ’ s ability to order domestic troop deployments short of martial law will be dangerously broad .
Part I : What is Martial Law ?
In the United States , however , the military @ @ @ @ @ @ @ one of three categories .
First , the armed forces sometimes assist civilian authorities with “ non–law enforcement ” functions .
For example , in the aftermath of Hurricane Katrina in 2005 , the military deployed helicopters along the Gulf Coast to carry out search-and-rescue missions that local governments were unable to do themselves .
Second , and far less frequently , the military assists civilian authorities with “ law enforcement ” activities .
For example , state and federal troops were deployed to help police suppress the 1992 Los Angeles riots .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ military has taken the place of the civilian government .
This is what happened in Hawaii during World War II .
Usually , but not always , the term “ martial law ” refers to the third category .
It describes a power that , in an emergency , allows the military to push aside civilian authorities and exercise jurisdiction over the population of a particular area .
Laws are enforced by soldiers rather than local police .
Policy decisions are made by military officers rather than elected officials .
People accused of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ than ordinary civilian courts .
In short , the military is in charge .
This is a dramatic departure from normal practice in the United States .
The U.S. military , when allowed to act domestically at all , is ordinarily limited to assisting civilian authorities .
Martial law turns that relationship on its head .
The displacement of civilian government distinguishes it from other emergency powers , such as the suspension of the writ of habeas corpus .
Suspending the writ allows the government to detain and hold individuals without charge but @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the armed forces .
While a declaration of martial law might be accompanied by a suspension of habeas corpus , they are distinct concepts .
Martial law has not always meant what it does today .
The term first appeared in England in the 1530s during the reign of King Henry VIII .
At that time and for centuries afterward , martial law generally referred to what is now called “ military law.
” This is the law that applies when a soldier is court-martialed .
In the modern United States , it @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Military Justice .
footnote5_rd67z6r11 U.S. law did not recognize martial law as an emergency power until the mid-19th century .
Before that time , the idea of allowing military rule in an emergency was considered outrageous — as evidenced by the national reaction to the first declaration of martial law in U.S. history .
In December 1814 , toward the end of the War of 1812 , Gen. Andrew Jackson led a small army in the defense of New Orleans against a much larger invading British force .
As part of his defensive @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the city .
He censored the press , enforced a curfew , and detained numerous civilians without charge .
Moreover , he continued military rule for more than two months after his famous victory at the Battle of New Orleans had ended any real threat from the British .
Jackson argued that his actions were justified because the government in New Orleans had ceased to function as a result of the impending British attack , leaving the military as the only body able to protect the city .
In that situation , he @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to do anything that was “ necessary ” to preserve New Orleans .
This was a novel argument , and it did little to explain why he kept the city under martial law for so long .
At the time , almost everyone rejected Jackson ’ s theory , which perhaps is unsurprising .
The founding generation had been deeply suspicious of military power .
That suspicion is apparent in the Declaration of Independence , which accuses King George III of rendering “ the Military independent of and superior to the Civil power @ @ @ @ @ @ @ which pointedly divides the war powers between Congress and the president , and requires that the commander in chief always be a civilian .
In an 1815 case , the Louisiana Supreme Court described Jackson ’ s conduct in New Orleans as “ trampling upon the Constitution and laws of our country.
” Similarly , acting Secretary of War Alexander Dallas explained in a letter to Jackson that martial law had no legal existence in the United States outside of the Articles of War , the predecessor to the modern Uniform Code of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ in 1815 was that martial law was simply another term for military law , and that military jurisdiction could extend no further than the armed forces themselves .
After Jackson relinquished control of New Orleans back to its civilian government , the local federal district judge held him in contempt of court , fining him $ 1,000 .
Jackson paid the fine , and for the next 27 years , nothing more came of the incident .
However , in the early 1840s , the now-aging former president orchestrated a campaign in Congress @ @ @ @ @ @ @ fine , plus interest .
The ensuing congressional refund debates marked the beginning of a shift in how Americans understood martial law .
By pursuing a refund , Jackson hoped to set a precedent for , as one historian put it , “ the legitimacy of violating the Constitution and civil liberties in times of national emergency.
” He got exactly what he wanted .
Congress enacted the refund bill in February 1844 , symbolically endorsing Jackson ’ s three-month-long imposition of martial law in New Orleans almost 30 years after it had @ @ @ @ @ @ @ United States ’ second experience with martial law was already underway in Rhode Island .
The so-called “ Dorr War ” involved a dispute over the state ’ s first constitution , which severely restricted the right to vote .
In 1842 , after efforts to reform this system had been rebuffed for years , a large group of Rhode Islanders led by Thomas Dorr organized its own constitutional convention , adopted a new constitution , held elections , and declared itself the true government of Rhode Island .
When Dorr rallied his @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , the Rhode Island General Assembly declared martial law and called out the state militia to suppress the rebellion .
In 1849 , the U.S. Supreme Court upheld the legality of Rhode Island ’ s martial law declaration in Luther v. Borden .
Writing for the majority , Chief Justice Roger Taney — of Dred Scott infamy — embraced Andrew Jackson ’ s idea that martial law allows civilians to be subjected to military jurisdiction in an emergency .
He described this power as an essential part of states ’ right to defend @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to all sovereign governments .
By endorsing the constitutionality of martial law , the Supreme Court finished what Congress had started with the refund bill .
The Luther decision makes clear that martial law exists as an emergency power that can be invoked in the United States , at least by state legislatures .
But Luther also leaves many questions unanswered .
It does not explain the legal basis for martial law , its scope , when it may be declared , or who is authorized to declare it .
Indeed , the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ in Luther or any subsequent case , that the federal government has the power to impose martial law .
In one case , the Court suggested in “ dicta ” — a term for language in a judicial opinion that is not a necessary part of the holding and is not strictly legally binding — that the federal government may declare martial law .
footnote18_j5y04w024 It assumed the same in another case , but only for the purpose of deciding a narrower legal question .
Neither of those decisions conclusively affirms that a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the United States martial law has been declared for a state or other locality under various circumstances including after a direct foreign attack ( Hawaii after the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor ; New Orleans during the Battle of New Orleans ) ; after a major disaster ( Chicago after the Great Chicago Fire of 1871 ; San Francisco after the earthquake of 1906 ) ; and in response to chaos associated with protests and mob action ( San Francisco during the 1934 West Coast waterfront strike ; Montgomery , Alabama , following @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ) .
It has also been declared by renegade local leaders seeking to avoid arrest or challenges to their authority ( Nauvoo , Illinois by Joseph Smith during the Illinois Mormon War and Utah by Governor Brigham Young during the Utah War ) .
The martial law concept in the United States is closely tied with the right of habeas corpus , which is in essence the right to a hearing on lawful imprisonment , or more broadly , the supervision of law enforcement by the judiciary .
The ability to suspend habeas @ @ @ @ @ @ @ martial law .
Article 1 , Section 9 of the U.S. Constitution states , “ The Privilege of the Writ of Habeas Corpus shall not be suspended , unless when in Cases of Rebellion or Invasion the public Safety may require it.
” There have been many instances of the use of the military within the borders of the United States , such as during the Whiskey Rebellion and in the South during the Civil Rights Movement , but these acts are not tantamount to a declaration of martial law .
The distinction @ @ @ @ @ @ @ between martial law and military justice : deployment of troops does not necessarily mean that the civil courts can not function , and as the Supreme Court has noted , that is one of the keys to martial law .
In United States law , martial law is limited by several court decisions handed down between the American Civil War and World War II .
In 1878 , Congress passed the Posse Comitatus Act , which , depending on the circumstances , can forbid U.S. military involvement in domestic law enforcement without congressional @ @ @ @ @ @ @ President Trump might declare Martial Law : Throughout 2020 , America has faced a global pandemic , civil unrest after the death of George Floyd and a contentious election .
As a result , an influx of fear about the possibility of the invocation of martial law or unchecked military intervention is circulating around the internet among scholars and civilians alike .
“ The fear is certainly understandable , because as I ’ m sure you know , martial law isn ’ t described or confined or limited , proscribed in any way @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Bill Banks , a Syracuse professor with an expertise in constitutional and national security law , told Military Times .
“ If someone has declared martial law , they ’ re essentially saying that they are the law.
” In short , martial law can be imposed when civil rule fails , temporarily being replaced with military authority in a time of crisis .
Though rare , there have been a number of notable U.S. cases where martial law came into play , including in times of war , natural disaster and civic @ @ @ @ @ @ @ no shortage in 2020 .
While no precise definition of martial law exists , a precedent for it exists wherein , “ certain civil liberties may be suspended , such as the right to be free from unreasonable searches and seizures , freedom of association , and freedom of movement .
And the writ of habeas corpus [ the right to a trial before imprisonment ] may be suspended , ” according to documents from JRANK , an online legal encyclopedia .
Martial law may be declared by both the president and by @ @ @ @ @ @ @ martial law , according to the Brennan Center for Justice , however , “ their actions under the declaration must abide by the U.S. Constitution and are subject to review in federal court.
” “ Notorious examples include Franklin D. Roosevelt ’ s internment of U.S. citizens and residents of Japanese descent during World War II and George W. Bush ’ s programs of warrantless wiretapping and torture after the 9/11 terrorist attacks , ” the Atlantic reported .
“ Abraham Lincoln conceded that his unilateral suspension of habeas corpus during the Civil @ @ @ @ @ @ @ it as necessary to preserve the Union.
” Throughout the course of U.S. history , federal and state officials have declared martial law at least 68 times , according to Joseph Nunn , an expert with the Brennan Center for Justice .
Martial law does have limits .
The Posse Comitatus Act , passed on June 18 , 1878 , prevented federal troops from supervising Confederate state elections during Reconstruction .
Though initially it only applied to the Army , it has been amended to include the Defense Department and , of course @ @ @ @ @ @ @ act prevents troops from enforcing domestic law , preventing such actions as searching and seizing property or dispersing crowds .
However , National Guard units , which take their direction from state governors , are exempt from the Posse Comitatus Act .
One exception to Posse Comitatus , however , is the Insurrection Act , which allows the use of active-duty or National Guard troops for federal law enforcement in cases when “ rebellion against the authority of the U.S. makes it impracticable to enforce the laws of the U.S. by the ordinary @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to U.S. Northern Command .
The text of the Act reads : “ Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled , That in all cases of insurrection , or obstruction to the laws , either of the United States , or of any individual state or territory , where it is lawful for the President of the United States to call forth the militia for the purpose of suppressing such insurrection , or of causing the laws to be duly executed @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to employ , for the same purposes , such part of the land or naval force of the United States , as shall be judged necessary , having first observed all the pre-requisites of the law in that respect.
” But activating the National Guard even under federal Title 32 status , in which the federal government helps pay for Guard troops under state control , does not fall under the Insurrection Act , nor does it equate to martial law in ordinary circumstances .
“ Governors call the National Guard all the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ power outages , delivering medical supplies , stuff going on even during COVID , ” Banks said .
“ That ’ s not extraordinary , nor would it be if the President federalized the National Guard for similar reasons , responding to a need to disseminate vaccines next winter , for example , would be perfectly appropriate , lawful , not martial law.
” What do you think ?
NATIONAL POLL : Should President Trump Use The Insurrection Act and Declare Martial Law Right Now ?
I actually think it might go something @ @ @ @ @ @ @ legal team , along with Sidney Powell and the white hats all know that these legal issues will end up in front of SCOTUS .
They are using this time now in the lower courts to build their cases and spread the information ( as much of it as they can ) far and wide .
22\ So what does this mean for we Patriots right now ?
Do we sit back and do nothing ?
No .
We stand and we fight !
We continue protesting and shouting and calling our reps @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the truth of the evidence far and wide .
We push back against the MSM narrative .
You can read the full thread here .
And if you ’ re more of a visual learner , you can listen to my friend Daniel break it all down here : Before you go , please vote in my poll now that you know what it means !
NATIONAL POLL : Should President Trump Use The Insurrection Act and Declare Martial Law Right Now ?
Here are some more historic examples of Martial Law in @ @ @ @ @ @ @ :

We may receive compensation from affiliate partners for some links on this site. Read our full Disclosure here
24,799 views
We’ve been talking a lot about Martial Law here at WeLoveTrump over the past few weeks.
To be fair, it hasn’t just been us.
MANY people are talking about it.
Does it seem “far fetched”?
Seem like it couldn’t possibly actually happen?
Well, you might be surprised to learn exactly how many times it HAS already happened in the history of our country.
According to some, the count is 64 times!
Here's Michael Flynn on Newsmax saying that Trump could order "military capabilities" to swing states and "rerun an election in each of those states." "People out there talk about martial law like it's something that we've never done. Martial law has been instituted 64 times." pic.twitter.com/KNmiAGGiPF — Aaron Rupar (@atrupar) December 18, 2020
Still others like the Brennan Center (no, not THAT Brennan) count 68 times:
On August 20, 1942, military police in Honolulu, Hawaii, arrested a man named Harry White. Under normal circumstances, the U.S. military would not have been involved in his case. He was a stockbroker, not a soldier, and neither he nor his business had any connection with the armed forces. Even his alleged crime — embezzlement of funds from a client — was a violation of civilian, not military, law. But nothing about Hawaii was normal in 1942. It had been under martial law since the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor in December 1941. Its courts were closed and replaced with military tribunals. The rules governing everyday life were set not by an elected legislature but by the military governor. The army controlled every aspect of life in the islands, from criminal justice to parking zones and curbside trash removal. White was brought before a military provost court. His attorney objected to the court’s jurisdiction, requested a jury trial, and asked for time to prepare a defense. But Major Murrell, the presiding military officer, rejected these motions. Instead, just five days after being arrested, White was tried without a jury, convicted, and sentenced to five years in prison. As White’s story illustrates, martial law — a term that generally refers to the displacement of civilian authorities by the military — can be and has been employed in the United States. Indeed, federal and state officials have declared martial law at least 68 times over the course of U.S. history. footnote5_2j98s6h5 Yet the concept has never been well understood. The Constitution does not mention martial law, and no act of Congress defines it. The Supreme Court has addressed it on only a handful of occasions, and the Court’s reasoning in these decisions is inconsistent and vague. The precedents are also old: the most recent one — in which the Court overturned Harry White’s conviction — was decided almost 75 years ago. This report aims to clear up the confusion that surrounds martial law. To do so, it draws on recent legal scholarship, the few rules that can be gleaned from Supreme Court precedent, and general principles of constitutional law. It concludes that under current law, the president lacks any authority to declare martial law. Congress might be able to authorize a presidential declaration of martial law, but this has not been conclusively decided. State officials do have the power to declare martial law, but their actions under the declaration must abide by the U.S. Constitution and are subject to review in federal court. Outside of these general principles, there are many questions that simply cannot be answered given the sparse and confusing legal precedent. Moreover, although lacking authority to replace civilian authorities with federal troops, the president has ample authority under current law to deploy troops to assist civilian law enforcement. Until Congress and state legislatures enact stricter and better-defined limits, the exact scope of martial law will remain unsettled, and the president’s ability to order domestic troop deployments short of martial law will be dangerously broad.
Part I: What is Martial Law? “Martial law” has no established definition. In the United States, however, the military’s domestic activities typically fall into one of three categories. First, the armed forces sometimes assist civilian authorities with “non–law enforcement” functions. For example, in the aftermath of Hurricane Katrina in 2005, the military deployed helicopters along the Gulf Coast to carry out search-and-rescue missions that local governments were unable to do themselves. Second, and far less frequently, the military assists civilian authorities with “law enforcement” activities. For example, state and federal troops were deployed to help police suppress the 1992 Los Angeles riots. Third, on some occasions, the military has taken the place of the civilian government. This is what happened in Hawaii during World War II. Usually, but not always, the term “martial law” refers to the third category. It describes a power that, in an emergency, allows the military to push aside civilian authorities and exercise jurisdiction over the population of a particular area. Laws are enforced by soldiers rather than local police. Policy decisions are made by military officers rather than elected officials. People accused of crimes are brought before military tribunals rather than ordinary civilian courts. In short, the military is in charge. This is a dramatic departure from normal practice in the United States. The U.S. military, when allowed to act domestically at all, is ordinarily limited to assisting civilian authorities. Martial law turns that relationship on its head. The displacement of civilian government distinguishes it from other emergency powers, such as the suspension of the writ of habeas corpus. Suspending the writ allows the government to detain and hold individuals without charge but does not imply any unusual role for the armed forces. While a declaration of martial law might be accompanied by a suspension of habeas corpus, they are distinct concepts. Martial law has not always meant what it does today. The term first appeared in England in the 1530s during the reign of King Henry VIII. At that time and for centuries afterward, martial law generally referred to what is now called “military law.” This is the law that applies when a soldier is court-martialed. In the modern United States, it is codified in the Uniform Code of Military Justice. footnote5_rd67z6r11 U.S. law did not recognize martial law as an emergency power until the mid-19th century. Before that time, the idea of allowing military rule in an emergency was considered outrageous — as evidenced by the national reaction to the first declaration of martial law in U.S. history. In December 1814, toward the end of the War of 1812, Gen. Andrew Jackson led a small army in the defense of New Orleans against a much larger invading British force. As part of his defensive preparations, Jackson imposed martial law on the city. He censored the press, enforced a curfew, and detained numerous civilians without charge. Moreover, he continued military rule for more than two months after his famous victory at the Battle of New Orleans had ended any real threat from the British. Jackson argued that his actions were justified because the government in New Orleans had ceased to function as a result of the impending British attack, leaving the military as the only body able to protect the city. In that situation, he claimed, the military had the authority to do anything that was “necessary” to preserve New Orleans. This was a novel argument, and it did little to explain why he kept the city under martial law for so long. At the time, almost everyone rejected Jackson’s theory, which perhaps is unsurprising. The founding generation had been deeply suspicious of military power. That suspicion is apparent in the Declaration of Independence, which accuses King George III of rendering “the Military independent of and superior to the Civil power” — and in the Constitution, which pointedly divides the war powers between Congress and the president, and requires that the commander in chief always be a civilian. In an 1815 case, the Louisiana Supreme Court described Jackson’s conduct in New Orleans as “trampling upon the Constitution and laws of our country.” Similarly, acting Secretary of War Alexander Dallas explained in a letter to Jackson that martial law had no legal existence in the United States outside of the Articles of War, the predecessor to the modern Uniform Code of Military Justice. Overall, the consensus in 1815 was that martial law was simply another term for military law, and that military jurisdiction could extend no further than the armed forces themselves. After Jackson relinquished control of New Orleans back to its civilian government, the local federal district judge held him in contempt of court, fining him $1,000. Jackson paid the fine, and for the next 27 years, nothing more came of the incident. However, in the early 1840s, the now-aging former president orchestrated a campaign in Congress to refund him the cost of the fine, plus interest. The ensuing congressional refund debates marked the beginning of a shift in how Americans understood martial law. By pursuing a refund, Jackson hoped to set a precedent for, as one historian put it, “the legitimacy of violating the Constitution and civil liberties in times of national emergency.” He got exactly what he wanted. Congress enacted the refund bill in February 1844, symbolically endorsing Jackson’s three-month-long imposition of martial law in New Orleans almost 30 years after it had ended. By this time, the United States’ second experience with martial law was already underway in Rhode Island. The so-called “Dorr War” involved a dispute over the state’s first constitution, which severely restricted the right to vote. In 1842, after efforts to reform this system had been rebuffed for years, a large group of Rhode Islanders led by Thomas Dorr organized its own constitutional convention, adopted a new constitution, held elections, and declared itself the true government of Rhode Island. When Dorr rallied his supporters to assert their authority by force, the Rhode Island General Assembly declared martial law and called out the state militia to suppress the rebellion. In 1849, the U.S. Supreme Court upheld the legality of Rhode Island’s martial law declaration in Luther v. Borden. Writing for the majority, Chief Justice Roger Taney — of Dred Scott infamy — embraced Andrew Jackson’s idea that martial law allows civilians to be subjected to military jurisdiction in an emergency. He described this power as an essential part of states’ right to defend themselves and suggested that it is inherent to all sovereign governments. By endorsing the constitutionality of martial law, the Supreme Court finished what Congress had started with the refund bill. The Luther decision makes clear that martial law exists as an emergency power that can be invoked in the United States, at least by state legislatures. But Luther also leaves many questions unanswered. It does not explain the legal basis for martial law, its scope, when it may be declared, or who is authorized to declare it. Indeed, the Supreme Court has never directly held, in Luther or any subsequent case, that the federal government has the power to impose martial law. In one case, the Court suggested in “dicta”— a term for language in a judicial opinion that is not a necessary part of the holding and is not strictly legally binding — that the federal government may declare martial law. footnote18_j5y04w024 It assumed the same in another case, but only for the purpose of deciding a narrower legal question. Neither of those decisions conclusively affirms that a federal martial law power exists.
Quiz: How many times has martial law been imposed/declared in the US? https://t.co/UqBkvi5zTX — Lanet (@lanet) April 9, 2015
From Wikipedia:
In the United States martial law has been declared for a state or other locality under various circumstances including after a direct foreign attack (Hawaii after the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor; New Orleans during the Battle of New Orleans); after a major disaster (Chicago after the Great Chicago Fire of 1871; San Francisco after the earthquake of 1906); and in response to chaos associated with protests and mob action (San Francisco during the 1934 West Coast waterfront strike; Montgomery, Alabama, following the mob actions against the Freedom Riders). It has also been declared by renegade local leaders seeking to avoid arrest or challenges to their authority (Nauvoo, Illinois by Joseph Smith during the Illinois Mormon War and Utah by Governor Brigham Young during the Utah War). The martial law concept in the United States is closely tied with the right of habeas corpus, which is in essence the right to a hearing on lawful imprisonment, or more broadly, the supervision of law enforcement by the judiciary. The ability to suspend habeas corpus is related to the imposition of martial law. Article 1, Section 9 of the U.S. Constitution states, “The Privilege of the Writ of Habeas Corpus shall not be suspended, unless when in Cases of Rebellion or Invasion the public Safety may require it.” There have been many instances of the use of the military within the borders of the United States, such as during the Whiskey Rebellion and in the South during the Civil Rights Movement, but these acts are not tantamount to a declaration of martial law. The distinction must be made as clear as that between martial law and military justice: deployment of troops does not necessarily mean that the civil courts cannot function, and as the Supreme Court has noted, that is one of the keys to martial law. In United States law, martial law is limited by several court decisions handed down between the American Civil War and World War II. In 1878, Congress passed the Posse Comitatus Act, which, depending on the circumstances, can forbid U.S. military involvement in domestic law enforcement without congressional approval.
The Military Times explains how President Trump might declare Martial Law:
Throughout 2020, America has faced a global pandemic, civil unrest after the death of George Floyd and a contentious election. As a result, an influx of fear about the possibility of the invocation of martial law or unchecked military intervention is circulating around the internet among scholars and civilians alike. “The fear is certainly understandable, because as I’m sure you know, martial law isn’t described or confined or limited, proscribed in any way by the Constitution or laws,” Bill Banks, a Syracuse professor with an expertise in constitutional and national security law, told Military Times. “If someone has declared martial law, they’re essentially saying that they are the law.” What is ‘martial law’ In short, martial law can be imposed when civil rule fails, temporarily being replaced with military authority in a time of crisis. Though rare, there have been a number of notable U.S. cases where martial law came into play, including in times of war, natural disaster and civic dispute — of which there has been no shortage in 2020. While no precise definition of martial law exists, a precedent for it exists wherein, “certain civil liberties may be suspended, such as the right to be free from unreasonable searches and seizures, freedom of association, and freedom of movement. And the writ of habeas corpus [the right to a trial before imprisonment] may be suspended,” according to documents from JRANK, an online legal encyclopedia. Martial law may be declared by both the president and by Congress. State officials may also declare martial law, according to the Brennan Center for Justice, however, “their actions under the declaration must abide by the U.S. Constitution and are subject to review in federal court.” “Notorious examples include Franklin D. Roosevelt’s internment of U.S. citizens and residents of Japanese descent during World War II and George W. Bush’s programs of warrantless wiretapping and torture after the 9/11 terrorist attacks,” the Atlantic reported. “Abraham Lincoln conceded that his unilateral suspension of habeas corpus during the Civil War was constitutionally questionable, but defended it as necessary to preserve the Union.” Throughout the course of U.S. history, federal and state officials have declared martial law at least 68 times, according to Joseph Nunn, an expert with the Brennan Center for Justice. Martial law does have limits. The Posse Comitatus Act, passed on June 18, 1878, prevented federal troops from supervising Confederate state elections during Reconstruction. Though initially it only applied to the Army, it has been amended to include the Defense Department and, of course, the other service branches. That act prevents troops from enforcing domestic law, preventing such actions as searching and seizing property or dispersing crowds. However, National Guard units, which take their direction from state governors, are exempt from the Posse Comitatus Act.
One exception to Posse Comitatus, however, is the Insurrection Act, which allows the use of active-duty or National Guard troops for federal law enforcement in cases when “rebellion against the authority of the U.S. makes it impracticable to enforce the laws of the U.S. by the ordinary course of judicial proceedings,” according to U.S. Northern Command. The text of the Act reads:
“Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, That in all cases of insurrection, or obstruction to the laws, either of the United States, or of any individual state or territory, where it is lawful for the President of the United States to call forth the militia for the purpose of suppressing such insurrection, or of causing the laws to be duly executed, it shall be lawful for him to employ, for the same purposes, such part of the land or naval force of the United States, as shall be judged necessary, having first observed all the pre-requisites of the law in that respect.” But activating the National Guard even under federal Title 32 status, in which the federal government helps pay for Guard troops under state control, does not fall under the Insurrection Act, nor does it equate to martial law in ordinary circumstances. “Governors call the National Guard all the time to respond to a storms or power outages, delivering medical supplies, stuff going on even during COVID,” Banks said. “That’s not extraordinary, nor would it be if the President federalized the National Guard for similar reasons, responding to a need to disseminate vaccines next winter, for example, would be perfectly appropriate, lawful, not martial law.”
What do you think?
NATIONAL POLL: Should President Trump Use The Insurrection Act and Declare Martial Law Right Now?
I actually think it might go something more like this:
Enjoy:
1\ As we’ve been watching the hearings on election fraud in these contested states, I keep thinking about the phrase “The military is the only way.” There are several related drops, but D36 stands out to me. Everything is so corrupt, there is no other way than the military.
2\ If the military is the only way, tho, why bother with lawsuits and fights with the MSM? Why not just invoke the Insurrection Act and take down these traitors? Because the people won’t accept it. They must first see it for themselves.
3\ Before Nov 3rd, most people still believed the elections were mostly fair and honest. Minor attempts at fraud existed, sure, but nothing like widespread national vote rigging. That fairytale has since been thoroughly and completely shattered these last several weeks.
4\ This mass blackpilling of people concerning our elections reminds me of another drop we saw a lot of during the riots and violence just a couple short months ago: D4461. Did you think “you must show them” was only about the riots?
5\ We all had to be shown just how thoroughly corrupt our elections had become and just how deep that corruption had spread. We all know there is corruption in D.C., but we also had to see the corruption at the state and local levels too. Even Republicans were in on it.
6\ Evidence was collected and lawsuits were filed, only for us to run into yet another level of corruption: the courts. Anons already know the level of corruption in these courts with activist judges running cover for the [DS]. But most others still needed to see it.
7\ We’ve seen flagrantly asinine rulings from these judges, and obviously biased refusals to even consider the evidence in some cases. Here and there a normal judge appears, but they are almost always overruled by corrupted higher courts.
8\ All along this time, we’ve also been witnessing yet another level of corruption in the mainstream media (MSM). The full on suppression and refusal to cover any of these lawsuits fairly and accurately to keep the info from the people is criminal. Even Fox News has thrown in.
9\ And joining their more traditional MSM brethren, are the Big Tech tyrants, who happily label anything speaking honestly and factually as ‘disputed’. They’re also quite happy in outright suspending or banning accounts that get a little too close to the truth.
10\ In an effort to combat these corrupt and fraudulent acts, we reach out to our corrupted DOJ and FBI for assistance in restraining these bad actors, and are responded to with silence. It’s as if these agencies are also in on the fraud and do not want to get involved.
11\ Every step of the way, we are met with fierce opposition and resistance. Integrity has no bearing and truth does not matter. We are like Sisyphus, forever pushing the same infinitely heavy boulder up the same insurmountable hill.
12\ We hold hearings with republican reps and senators from state legislatures presenting the evidence we’ve collected of widespread fraud. Afterward, they’re fully engaged, but there’s only so many of them and the remaining legislature doesn’t want the fight.
13\ Unfortunately, the state legislatures will most likely fail at their attempts to reclaim the electoral power. But this is known and expected. Why pursue it then, along with these hearings? Because WTP and these legislatures need to know the truth being kept from them.
14\ The Trump legal team, along with Sidney Powell and the white hats all know that these legal issues will end up in front of SCOTUS. They are using this time now in the lower courts to build their cases and spread the information (as much of it as they can) far and wide.
15\ The MAGA legal team needs to have the people and the state legislatures on board when the real hammer drops after SCOTUS rules in favor of Trump. Do you think Soros, et al. and the [DS] will simply accept a SCOTUS ruling that awards Trump his rightfully earned second term?
16\ The [DS] and the Soros bunch, along with the MSM, will cry bloody murder when the SCOTUS ruling drops. They will not accept it. They will blame ACB and refuse to concede. The riots will start again. The fires, the looting, the violence. The WH will be surrounded.
17\ The [DS] will have their ghoulish black bloc brigades thoroughly convinced the election was stolen by Trump and that they need to remove him by force. Tensions will rise until the hoards overrun the WH grounds and attempt to remove the POTUS, who will be absent.
18\ It is around this time we will get the message via Twitter: “My fellow Americans, the Storm is upon us.” and the Insurrection Act will be finally invoked. The military and federalized NG will restore order to the streets, and will conduct all investigations into the fraud.
19\ What evidence do you think they’ll use to conduct these investigations? Possibly all the evidence being collected now and being displayed for all to see in these hearings? Would they add more of their own evidence? Treason will be declared and perp walks will begin.
20\ If you don’t think POTUS has these authorities under the Insurrection Act, I’d refer you to D11, where the authority is directly implied.
21\ So we’re just waiting on the SCOTUS rulings and the invocation of the Insurrection Act. That’s what all this is leading up to. POTUS and white hats had to show the people the truth and that all options to correct the fraud had been expended before invoking the Act, however.
22\ So what does this mean for we Patriots right now? Do we sit back and do nothing? No. We stand and we fight! We continue protesting and shouting and calling our reps to support each other. We share the truth of the evidence far and wide. We push back against the MSM narrative.
23\ We must let our supportive reps know that we stand with them, and we must let other Patriots know they are not alone. Do not hang your head when the “losses” come for we knew they would. They must to prove the necessity of the actions to be taken later.
24\ Stand tall, Patriot, knowing your voice will be heard. Stand tall, Patriot, knowing the truth will be shown. Stand tall, Patriot, knowing the corruption is nearing its end. This is not another 4-year election. No war. No civil unrest. Clean and swift. God wins.
You can read the full thread here.
And if you’re more of a visual learner, you can listen to my friend Daniel break it all down here:
Before you go, please vote in my poll now that you know what it means!
Vote here….👇
NATIONAL POLL: Should President Trump Use The Insurrection Act and Declare Martial Law Right Now?
Here are some more historic examples of Martial Law in the USA, from the Brennan Center:
General Andrew Jackson declares martial law before the Battle of New Orleans, 1814. Covered Area: New Orleans, Lousiana
State or Federal: Federal
Duration: December 12, 1814 – March 13, 1815 (3 months) Precipitating Event: Battle of New Orleans during the War of 1812 Declaring Authority: Gen. Andrew Jackson
Terminating Authority: Gen. Andrew Jackson Relevant Presidential Proclamations or Executive Orders: None
Civilians Tried by Military Tribunal? Yes Related Litigation: Habeas and contempt proceedings in the federal district court in New Orleans Notes: This was the first declaration of martial law in U.S. history. President Franklin Roosevelt approves the declaration of martial law in Hawaii after the attack on Pearl Harbor, 1941. Covered Area: Hawaii Territory
State or Federal: Federal
Duration: December 7, 1941 – October 24, 1944 (2 years, 10 months, 17 days) Precipitating Event: Attack on Pearl Harbor during World War II Declaring Authority: Gov. J. B. Poindexter and Lt. Gen. Walter C. Short (declaration approved by Pres. Franklin Roosevelt)
Terminating Authority: Pres. Franklin Roosevelt Relevant Presidential Proclamations or Executive Orders: Proclamation No. 2627 (1944)
Civilians Tried by Military Tribunal? Yes Related Litigation: Duncan v. Kahanamoku, 327 U.S. 304 (1946); Ex parte Zimmerman, 132 F.2d 442 (9th Cir. 1942), cert. denied “on the ground that the cause is moot,” 319 U.S. 744 (1943); Ex parte Spurlock, 66 F. Supp. 997 (D. Haw. 1944), rev’dSteer v. Spurlock, 146 F.2d 652 (9th Cir. 1944), cert. denied “on the ground that the cause is moot,” 324 U.S. 863 (1945); Ochikubo v. Bonesteel, 60 F. Supp. 916 (S.D. Cal. 1945); Kam Koon Wan v. E.E. Black, Ltd., 75 F. Supp. 553 (D. Haw. 1948)
Domestic War or Insurrection Rhode Island General Assembly declares martial law during the Dorr War, 1842. Covered Area: Rhode Island
State or Federal: State
Duration: June 25, 1842 – May 1843 (11 months) Precipitating Event: Dorr War Declaring Authority: Rhode Island General Assembly (Charter government)
Terminating Authority: See notes Relevant Presidential Proclamations or Executive Orders: None
Civilians Tried by Military Tribunal? No Notes: This was the first time that the U.S. Supreme Court upheld a declaration of martial law. The state of martial law appears to have been terminated by operation of law when Rhode Island adopted a new constitution in May 1843. Gov. Brigham Young declares martial law during the Utah War, 1857. Covered Area: Utah Territory
State or Federal: See notes
Duration: September 15, 1857 – June 12, 1858 (9 months) Precipitating Event: Utah War Declaring Authority: Gov. Brigham Young
Terminating Authority: See notes Relevant Presidential Proclamations or Executive Orders: None
Civilians Tried by Military Tribunal? No Notes: Although Governor Young declared martial law under color of his authority as the territorial governor, he did so in order to facilitate armed resistance to approaching federal troops. Hostilities in Utah ended on June 12, 1858, when Young accepted President James Buchanan’s pardon and was removed from power. It does not appear that a formal proclamation ending martial law was ever promulgated. Gen. John C. Fremont declares martial law in Missouri in response to the Camp Jackson Affair and a Confederate insurgency, 1861. Covered Area: Missouri
State or Federal: Federal
Duration: August 30, 1861 (August 14, 1861 in St. Louis only) – March 17, 1865 (4 years) Precipitating Event: Camp Jackson Affair and ongoing Confederate insurgency during the U.S. Civil War Declaring Authority: Gen. John C. Fremont
Terminating Authority: Gen. John Pope Relevant Presidential Proclamations or Executive Orders: None
Civilians Tried by Military Tribunal? Unclear Related Litigation: Clark v. Dick, 5 F. Cas. 865 (C.C.D. Mo. 1870) Notes: U.S. Army Gen. John C. Fremont declared martial law in St. Louis on August 14, 1861, and then throughout Missouri on August 30. Fremont was soon relieved of command for insubordination. His successor, Gen. Henry W. Halleck, believed that Fremont had lacked the authority to declare martial law, and he refused to enforce it until he received written authorization to do so from President Abraham Lincoln in December 1861. Pres. Abraham Lincoln declares martial law during the U.S. Civil War, 1862. Covered Area: United States
State or Federal: Federal
Duration: September 24, 1862 – August 20, 1866 (4 years) Precipitating Event: U.S. Civil War Declaring Authority: Pres. Abraham Lincoln
Terminating Authority: Pres. Andrew Johnson Relevant Presidential Proclamations or Executive Orders: Proclamation 94 (1862); Proclamation 157 (1866)
Civilians Tried by Military Tribunal? Yes Related Litigation: Ex parte Milligan, 71 U.S. 2 (1866); Ex parte Benedict, 3 F. Cas. 159 (N.D.N.Y. 1862); Ex parte Field, 9 F. Cas. 1 (C.C.D. Vt. 1862); Ex parte Vallandingham, 28 F. Cas. 874 (C.C.S.D. Ohio 1863) Notes: Rather than declaring martial law over a particular area, Proclamation 94 applied martial law to “all rebels and insurgents, their aiders and abettors, within the United States, and all persons discouraging volunteer enlistments, resisting militia draft or guilty of any disloyal practice affording aid and comfort to rebels against the authority of the United States.” Pres. Abraham Lincoln declares martial law in Kentucky during the U.S. Civil War, 1864. Covered Area: Kentucky
State or Federal: Federal
Duration: July 5, 1864 – October 12, 1865 (1 year, 3 months) Precipitating Event: U.S. Civil War Declaring Authority: Pres. Abraham Lincoln
Terminating Authority: Pres. Andrew Johnson Relevant Presidential Proclamations or Executive Orders: Proclamation 113 (1864); Proclamation 146 (1865)
Civilians Tried by Military Tribunal? Unclear North Carolina Gov. William Holden declares martial law during the Kirk-Holden War, 1870. Covered Area: Caswell and Alamance counties, North Carolina
State or Federal: State
Duration: July 8, 1870 – November 10, 1870 (4 months) Precipitating Event: Kirk-Holden War Declaring Authority: Gov. William Holden
Terminating Authority: Gov. William Holden Relevant Presidential Proclamations or Executive Orders: None
Civilians Tried by Military Tribunal? Unclear Texas Gov. Lawrence Sullivan Ross declares martial law during the Jaybird-Woodpecker War, 1889. Covered Area: Fort Bend County, Texas
State or Federal: State
Duration: August 16, 1889 – Unclear (“Several days”) Precipitating Event: Jaybird-Woodpecker War Declaring Authority: Gov. Lawrence Sullivan Ross
Terminating Authority: Unclear Relevant Presidential Proclamations or Executive Orders: None
Civilians Tried by Military Tribunal? No


welovetrump--2020-12-18--Oprah Winfrey: “OLD WHITE PEOPLE HAVE TO DIE!”

What are people saying about all this ?
The latest episode of the AppleTV+ series , which featured activist and former NFL player Emmanuel Acho , spoke with white guests about topics such as whiteness , white privilege , and racism .
Irene Armendariz-Jackson , a Texas Republican candidate for the U.S. House of Representatives , blasted the billionaire progressive on social media , writing , “ And now why is Oprah , maybe the richest black woman in the world , trying to shame white people as privileged ?
Miss Winfrey , you are the personification of WHITE PRIVILEGE @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ) also took to social media and shared The Blaze ’ s Tuesday reporting on the matter , blasting Winfrey ’ s remarks as “ utter , racist BS.
” Conservative commentator Wayne Dupree added , “ Billionaire Oprah is now shaming white people for all their ‘ easy success ’ in life.
” In an essay of his own , Harris Jr. wrote , “ Using white ‘ SJW ’ activists , some who are members of ANTIFA , as proof that ‘ white ’ people when ‘ Woke ’ can admit @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the rest of the white population , who are yet to self realize it .
Sickening , and must be challenged for what it is , Malcolm X re-packaged for 2020 ’ s snowflakes and BLM activism.
” Kimberly Klacik , U.S. House candidate from Maryland , added , “ Oprah Winfrey trying to profit off of a manufactured racial divide while being a billionaire when so many people are facing eviction is the sort of nonsense # CancelCulture should attack .
But , the cancel culture mob have proven to be not @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ripped the 66-year-old Winfrey for her remarks , calling her a “ fraud.
” Stigall shared TheBlaze ’ s report on Winfrey ’ s show via Twitter , captioning it , “ Said the billionaire made a billionaire by her overwhelmingly white audience .
What a fraud .
”

We may receive compensation from affiliate partners for some links on this site. Read our full Disclosure here
46,476 views
Yeah, I wish I was making this one up….
I’m not.
I never do.
The truth is always stranger than fiction, so why lie when you can just report what comes right out of their own mouths?
In this case it’s Oprah Winfrey.
The woman who got rich of white women watching her show religiously every day now says old white people have to die!
Charming.
Watch it here:
I bet you’ve never seen this clip before, have you?
Time to make it famous.
Let’s blast this everywhere!
Never forget, Oprah believe all old white people must die to end racism “ I said this for my own community in the south — there are still generations of people, older people, who were born, and bred, and marinated in it, in that prejudice and racism, and they just have to die.” — Corn-Pop Turd Ferguson (@Ramirez1301) July 31, 2020
I'm hoping #HarryMarkle will take Oprah to task saying "all old white people must die" always thought she was the big hearted caring saint but obviously a better actress than Meghan. — Jackie P (@Jackie___P) August 15, 2020
Oh and just in case (when?) YouScared deletes that video it’s all good because I saved a backup copy.
From Rumble:
Here’s more from The Blaze:
Black critics and lawmakers alike castigated Oprah Winfrey for a video that went viral Tuesday. The video, part of Winfrey’s series “The Oprah Conversation,” featured the namesake host encouraging white guests to admit to their racism and insisting that all white people have a “leg up” because of their skin color.


welovetrump--2020-12-18--Pentagon Abruptly HALTS All Biden Defense Briefings!  Insurrection Act Coming?

If you ’ ve been waiting for President Trump to make his move , it may have just started today !
News broke today that the Pentagon suddenly and abruptly halted all Biden defense briefings .
Now why do you suppose they would do that ?
I have a feeling the other shoe is about to drop imminently !
Perhaps over the weekend ?
Axios had the full details in the scoop : Acting Defense Secretary Chris Miller ordered a Pentagon-wide halt to cooperation with the transition of President-elect Biden , shocking officials across the Defense Department , senior administration @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Biden transition director Yohannes Abraham contradicted the Pentagon ’ s official response to this story on Friday afternoon , telling reporters , “ Let me be clear : there was no mutually agreed upon holiday break.
” • “ In fact , we think it ’ s important that briefings and other engagements continue during this period as there ’ s no time to spare , and that ’ s particularly true in the aftermath of ascertainment delay , ” Abraham continued , referring to the Trump administration ’ s delay in recognizing @ @ @ @ @ @ @ said in a statement following the publication of this story : “ At no time has the Department cancelled or declined any interview .
… After the mutually-agreed upon holiday , which begins tomorrow , we will continue with the transition and rescheduled meetings from today.
” Behind the scenes : Trump administration officials left open the possibility cooperation would resume after a holiday pause .
The officials were unsure what prompted Miller ’ s action , or whether President Trump approved .
Why it matters : Miller ’ s move , which @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the biggest eruption yet of animus and mistrust toward the Biden team from the top level of the Trump administration .
• Fury at the Biden team among senior Pentagon officials escalated after the Washington Post published a story on Wednesday night revealing how much money would be saved if Biden halted construction of Trump ’ s border wall .
• Trump officials blame the leak on the Biden transition team ( Though , it should be noted , they have no evidence of this , and both reporters on the byline cover @ @ @ @ @ @ @ prolific beneficiaries of leaks . )
What happened : Meetings between President Trump ’ s team and the Biden team are going on throughout the government , after a delayed start as the administration dragged its feet on officially recognizing Biden as president-elect .
• Then on Thursday night , Miller — who was appointed Nov. 9 , when Trump fired Defense Secretary Mark Esper right after the election — ordered officials throughout the building to cancel scheduled transition meetings .
Then the story really got good .
President Trump then met with @ @ @ @ @ @ @ afternoon : The media then tried to downplay the story .
The Department of Defense will continue to provide all required support to the Agency Review Team ( ART ) to keep our nation and her citizens safe .
As of today , we have supported 139 interviews sessions more than 200 DoD personnel , 161 requests for information , and disclosed thousands of pages of non-public and classified documents , exceeding prior transitions .
At no time has the Department cancelled or declined any interview .
Our key focus in the next @ @ @ @ @ @ @ information on OWS and COVID-19 information to guarantee a flawless transition .
This is my major focus area .
After the mutually-agreed upon holiday pause , which begins tomorrow , we will continue with the transition and rescheduled meetings from today .
Again , I remain committed to a full and transparent transition – this is what our nation expects and the DoD will deliver AS IT ALWAYS HAS.
” And if you want even more , watch this video .
NATIONAL POLL : Do You Still Have Trump 's Back 100 % @ @ @ @ @ @ @ it ’ s all about what happened today .

We may receive compensation from affiliate partners for some links on this site. Read our full Disclosure here
60,612 views
Uh oh Joe!
If you’ve been waiting for President Trump to make his move, it may have just started today!
News broke today that the Pentagon suddenly and abruptly halted all Biden defense briefings.
Now why do you suppose they would do that?
I have a feeling the other shoe is about to drop imminently!
Perhaps over the weekend?
Insurrection Act?
Martial law?
Take a look:
The acting defense secretary ordered a halt to cooperation with the Biden transition on the same night that Trump's former national security adviser mused about a military coup https://t.co/JA5luse17C — Aaron Rupar (@atrupar) December 18, 2020
https://twitter.com/Shadowwarrior30/status/1339969031357558797
Axios had the full details in the scoop:
Acting Defense Secretary Chris Miller ordered a Pentagon-wide halt to cooperation with the transition of President-elect Biden, shocking officials across the Defense Department, senior administration officials tell Axios. The latest: Biden transition director Yohannes Abraham contradicted the Pentagon’s official response to this story on Friday afternoon, telling reporters, “Let me be clear: there was no mutually agreed upon holiday break.” “In fact, we think it’s important that briefings and other engagements continue during this period as there’s no time to spare, and that’s particularly true in the aftermath of ascertainment delay,” Abraham continued, referring to the Trump administration’s delay in recognizing Biden as president-elect.
Miller had said in a statement following the publication of this story: “At no time has the Department cancelled or declined any interview. … After the mutually-agreed upon holiday, which begins tomorrow, we will continue with the transition and rescheduled meetings from today.” Behind the scenes: Trump administration officials left open the possibility cooperation would resume after a holiday pause. The officials were unsure what prompted Miller’s action, or whether President Trump approved. Why it matters: Miller’s move, which stunned officials throughout the Pentagon, was the biggest eruption yet of animus and mistrust toward the Biden team from the top level of the Trump administration. Fury at the Biden team among senior Pentagon officials escalated after the Washington Post published a story on Wednesday night revealing how much money would be saved if Biden halted construction of Trump’s border wall.
Trump officials blame the leak on the Biden transition team (Though, it should be noted, they have no evidence of this, and both reporters on the byline cover the Trump administration and have historically been prolific beneficiaries of leaks.) What happened: Meetings between President Trump’s team and the Biden team are going on throughout the government, after a delayed start as the administration dragged its feet on officially recognizing Biden as president-elect.
Then on Thursday night, Miller — who was appointed Nov. 9, when Trump fired Defense Secretary Mark Esper right after the election — ordered officials throughout the building to cancel scheduled transition meetings.
Trump installed Chris Miller as Acting Defense Secretary to help him & the @GOP continue their coup via our DoD—all while we’re focused on their 60+ election lawsuits. These treasonous actions along w/ Trump ignoring the Russian cyber attack are dangerous to national security. https://t.co/0bsFYJpyex — Christina Mask Up (@cmrobbinz) December 18, 2020
Much more details here….
Watch this:
Then the story really got good.
President Trump then met with Acting Defense Secretary Miller at 3:30pm this afternoon:
https://twitter.com/disclosetv/status/1339956444901326853?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw%7Ctwcamp%5Etweetembed%7Ctwterm%5E1339956444901326853%7Ctwgr%5E%7Ctwcon%5Es1_&ref_url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.thegatewaypundit.com%2F2020%2F12%2Fdeveloping-trump-meet-acting-defense-secretary-chris-miller-oval-office-330-pm%2F
The only meeting on Trump’s schedule today is with the acting Secretary of Defense — Chris Miller. 🤔 pic.twitter.com/oFv63laDTr — evie ღ 😷 (@eviebauer727) December 18, 2020
The Deep State totally flipped out:
Pentagon abruptly halts Biden transition—- MAKES NO SENSE. CLAIM THEY ARE OVERWHELMED. DOD GOES OPAQUE. TRUMP-MILLER UP TO NO GOOD. DANGER. —-https://t.co/mIcmaf5lFD — Barry R McCaffrey (@mccaffreyr3) December 18, 2020
The media then tried to downplay the story.
Take a look:
DoD pushes back on AXIOS scoop that Acting Pentagon Defense Secretary halts Biden transition briefings – says Miller asked for 1 day pause and both teams agreed to two week break over the holidays. Expecting statement soon. https://t.co/e24S9BM6qT — Jennifer Griffin (@JenGriffinFNC) December 18, 2020
Acting Secretary Miller released a statement earlier today.
Statement by Acting Secretary of Defense Miller: The Department of Defense will continue to provide all required support to the Agency Review Team (ART) to keep our nation and her citizens safe. As of today, we have supported 139 interviews sessions more than 200 DoD personnel, 161 requests for information, and disclosed thousands of pages of non-public and classified documents, exceeding prior transitions. At no time has the Department cancelled or declined any interview. 99.9% Fine Silver MAGA Collector Coins! Our key focus in the next two weeks is supporting essential requests for information on OWS and COVID-19 information to guarantee a flawless transition. This is my major focus area. After the mutually-agreed upon holiday pause, which begins tomorrow, we will continue with the transition and rescheduled meetings from today. Again, I remain committed to a full and transparent transition – this is what our nation expects and the DoD will deliver AS IT ALWAYS HAS.”
And if you want even more, watch this video.
Yes it says Bitcoin, but it’s all about what happened today.
Behind the scenes stuff.
Just watch on 2x speed:


welovetrump--2020-12-18--California May Lose a House Seat and an Electoral Vote Due To Record Low Population Growth

More people are leaving California than moving here , continuing a trend that coupled with fewer births has slowed the growth rate in the nation 's most populous state to a record low amid a pandemic that is reshaping its future .
Officially , California added 21,200 people from July 1 , 2019 , to July 1 , 2020 , increasing the state 's population a paltry 0.05 % to 39.78 million people - still by far the most of any state .
But the bigger news from Wednesday 's new population estimate was that 135,600 more people left the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ only the 12th time since 1900 the state has had a net migration loss , and the third largest ever recorded .
California became a state in 1850 after a gold rush spurred a massive migration of people moving west to seek their fortune .
The state boomed again following World War II because of the aerospace and defense industry , and again in the 1980s and early 1990s as technology companies made Silicon Valley a household name .
That growth slowed for the first time in the mid-1990s after the U.S. cut @ @ @ @ @ @ @ end of the Cold War .
It happened again during the leadup to the Great Recession in the late 2000s .
New population estimates released Wednesday by the state Department of Finance show it 's now happening a third time , as California recorded its third consecutive year of net migration loss .
The reasons why are n't yet fully understood .
In recent weeks , a string of high-profile business leaders have announced they are leaving California for states with lower taxes and fewer regulations - including Tesla CEO Elon Musk and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Hewlett-Packard , whose roots trace back to the founding of Silicon Valley .
A niche industry has emerged around the trend , with real estate agents starting websites like `` exitcalifornia.org '' and `` leavingthebayarea.com '' as the state 's median home price hit a record high of more than $ 712,000 in September .
`` With COVID and a lot of tech companies allowing people to work remotely , it 's certainly opened up the door for a lot of people to consider making the move out of California , '' said @ @ @ @ @ @ @ whose business is aimed at helping people leave California - something he did in June when he moved his family to Arizona .
`` We 're seeing a lot more high-income earners who are actively planning an exit strategy . ''
Matt Frinzi carried out his exit strategy on Tuesday , when he finished packing up his BMW X3 and left his home in San Francisco for Reno , Nevada - a state that does not have an income tax .
Frinzi has lived in California for 25 years , saying when he @ @ @ @ @ @ @ he thought it as `` the premiere city in the United States . ''
`` I would n't give you a nickel for it now , '' he said .
Frinzi said he came from a working class immigrant family in New Jersey , building a nice life in the medical business .
Now , with some in the state Legislature pushing for a new `` wealth tax '' on the state 's highest earners , Frinzi said it was time to leave .
The coronavirus pandemic furthered his resolve to move , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ overreach , '' including the state ordering businesses like restaurants and hair salons to close .

More people are leaving California than moving here, continuing a trend that coupled with fewer births has slowed the growth rate in the nation's most populous state to a record low amid a pandemic that is reshaping its future.
Officially, California added 21,200 people from July 1, 2019, to July 1, 2020, increasing the state's population a paltry 0.05% to 39.78 million people - still by far the most of any state.
But the bigger news from Wednesday's new population estimate was that 135,600 more people left the state than moved here. It's only the 12th time since 1900 the state has had a net migration loss, and the third largest ever recorded.
California became a state in 1850 after a gold rush spurred a massive migration of people moving west to seek their fortune. The state boomed again following World War II because of the aerospace and defense industry, and again in the 1980s and early 1990s as technology companies made Silicon Valley a household name.
That growth slowed for the first time in the mid-1990s after the U.S. cut back on its aerospace spending following the end of the Cold War. It happened again during the leadup to the Great Recession in the late 2000s. New population estimates released Wednesday by the state Department of Finance show it's now happening a third time, as California recorded its third consecutive year of net migration loss.
The reasons why aren't yet fully understood. In recent weeks, a string of high-profile business leaders have announced they are leaving California for states with lower taxes and fewer regulations - including Tesla CEO Elon Musk and the headquarters of tech giants Oracle and Hewlett-Packard, whose roots trace back to the founding of Silicon Valley.
A niche industry has emerged around the trend, with real estate agents starting websites like "exitcalifornia.org" and "leavingthebayarea.com" as the state's median home price hit a record high of more than $712,000 in September.
"With COVID and a lot of tech companies allowing people to work remotely, it's certainly opened up the door for a lot of people to consider making the move out of California," said Scott Fuller, a real estate agent whose business is aimed at helping people leave California - something he did in June when he moved his family to Arizona. "We're seeing a lot more high-income earners who are actively planning an exit strategy."
Matt Frinzi carried out his exit strategy on Tuesday, when he finished packing up his BMW X3 and left his home in San Francisco for Reno, Nevada - a state that does not have an income tax. Frinzi has lived in California for 25 years, saying when he moved to San Francisco in the 1990s he thought it as "the premiere city in the United States."
"I wouldn't give you a nickel for it now," he said.
Frinzi said he came from a working class immigrant family in New Jersey, building a nice life in the medical business. Now, with some in the state Legislature pushing for a new "wealth tax" on the state's highest earners, Frinzi said it was time to leave. The coronavirus pandemic furthered his resolve to move, he said, because of "government overreach," including the state ordering businesses like restaurants and hair salons to close.


welovetrump--2020-12-18--Joe Biden Describes Investigation Into His Son as “Foul Play,” calls Hunter “The Smartest Man I Know

Joe Biden Describes Investigation Into His Son as “Foul Play,” calls Hunter “The Smartest Man I Know”

Well , it looks as if Joe Biden has finally settled upon a defense of his troubled son , Hunter @ @ @ @ @ with Stephen Colbert , Biden was asked about Republicans using the investigation into his son @ @ @ @ @ Biden claimed that Republicans who are going after Hunter Biden for his shady business dealings @ @ @ @ @ play.
” Biden says he has no concerns about any of the accusations brought against @ @ @ @ @ even defended him by calling him “ the smartest man I know .
”

Well, it looks as if Joe Biden has finally settled upon a defense of his troubled son, Hunter Biden.
In an interview with Stephen Colbert, Biden was asked about Republicans using the investigation into his son to get to him.
Biden claimed that Republicans who are going after Hunter Biden for his shady business dealings are partaking in “foul play.”
Biden says he has no concerns about any of the accusations brought against his son Hunter.
He even defended him by calling him “the smartest man I know.”
That explains so much…


welovetrump--2020-12-19--A Hand Recount Confirmed That Trump Won A Michigan County Despite Reports Stating Biden Won The Coun

A Hand Recount Confirmed That Trump Won A Michigan County Despite Reports Stating Biden Won The County On Election Night

A hand recount in Antrim County Michigan just revealed that the election officials falsely reported on election night a win for Joe Biden .
After a hand recount , Antrim County officials found out that Trump won the county with 9,759 votes versus 5,959 for Biden .
They originally announced Biden won the county by over 3,000 votes .
The miscount was originally reported to be a “ human error ” but evidence shows that the discount was made by the Dominion Voting Systems that were used in the county .
The Epoch Times reported the story see what they @ @ @ @ @ @ @ on Wednesday confirmed that a Michigan county falsely reported on election night a win for Democratic presidential candidate Joe Biden .
The recount in Antrim County found 9,759 votes for President Donald Trump , versus 5,959 for Biden .
On Nov. 3 , county officials said Biden received over 3,000 more votes than Trump .
Two days later , they said Trump won by about 2,500 votes .
A third change took place on Nov. 21 , with Trump being certified the winner by nearly 4,000 votes .
An outside group that conducted @ @ @ @ @ @ @ found Dominion ’ s voting system “ intentionally generates an enormously high number of ballot errors , ” causing the ballots to enter a process known as adjudication .
The Western Journal didn ’ t stay silent and added these details : In the ongoing comedy of errors that is the 2020 presidential election , a recount confirmed that President Donald Trump won Michigan ’ s Antrim County , even though the election night results appeared to show that Joe Biden had taken the county .
A hand recount in Antrim County conducted @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , while Biden got 5,959 , the Detroit Free Press reported .
This was the third time that the county ’ s “ results ” were modified .
NATIONAL POLL : Do You Still Support President Trump ?

We may receive compensation from affiliate partners for some links on this site. Read our full Disclosure here
20,528 views
No surprise here!
A hand recount in Antrim County Michigan just revealed that the election officials falsely reported on election night a win for Joe Biden.
After a hand recount, Antrim County officials found out that Trump won the county with 9,759 votes versus 5,959 for Biden.
They originally announced Biden won the county by over 3,000 votes.
The miscount was originally reported to be a “human error” but evidence shows that the discount was made by the Dominion Voting Systems that were used in the county.
A hand #Recount confirmed that #Michigan's #AntrimCounty falsely reported a win for Joe Biden on #ElectionNight. The recount found 9,759 votes for President Trump, versus 5,959 for Biden. Officials blamed the skewed results on human error. https://t.co/FaPLUbZZbG — The Epoch Times (@EpochTimes) December 18, 2020
BREAKING REPORT: Recount Confirms TRUMP WON Michigan's Antrim County, same county that reported Biden Win on Election Night… — Chuck Callesto (@ChuckCallesto) December 18, 2020
The Epoch Times reported the story see what they had to add:
A hand recount on Wednesday confirmed that a Michigan county falsely reported on election night a win for Democratic presidential candidate Joe Biden. The recount in Antrim County found 9,759 votes for President Donald Trump, versus 5,959 for Biden. On Nov. 3, county officials said Biden received over 3,000 more votes than Trump. Two days later, they said Trump won by about 2,500 votes. A third change took place on Nov. 21, with Trump being certified the winner by nearly 4,000 votes. Officials blamed the skewed results on human error. Antrim County uses Dominion Voting Systems machines and software. An outside group that conducted an audit of the machines said they found Dominion’s voting system “intentionally generates an enormously high number of ballot errors,” causing the ballots to enter a process known as adjudication.
https://twitter.com/Raiklin/status/1339938166162243591
https://twitter.com/LindaofNM1/status/1340109596044607490
The Western Journal didn’t stay silent and added these details:
In the ongoing comedy of errors that is the 2020 presidential election, a recount confirmed that President Donald Trump won Michigan’s Antrim County, even though the election night results appeared to show that Joe Biden had taken the county. A hand recount in Antrim County conducted Thursday showed that Trump garnered 9,759 votes, while Biden got 5,959, the Detroit Free Press reported. This was the third time that the county’s “results” were modified.


welovetrump--2020-12-19--These 10 States Are Suing Google For Anti-trust Actions

Well , Texas , Kentucky , South Dakota , Arkansas , Idaho , Indiana , Mississippi , Missouri , North Dakota , and Utah don ’ t trust Google and are filing a lawsuit stating that the company is a “ monopolistic power ” .
The lawsuit also states that the search giant is “ anti-competitive ” when it comes to online advertising , and even struck a deal to manipulate sales with Facebook .
CBS News covered the lawsuit , let ’ s see what they had to share : Ten states on Wednesday brought a lawsuit against Google @ @ @ @ @ @ @ anti-competitive conduct ” in the online advertising industry , including a deal to manipulate sales with rival Facebook .
Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton announced the suit , which was filed in a federal court in Texas , saying Google is using its “ monopolistic power ” to control pricing of online advertisements , fixing the market in its favor and eliminating competition .
“ This Goliath of a company is using its power to manipulate the market , destroy competition , and harm you , the consumer , ” Paxton said in @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , which is based in Mountain View , California , called Paxton ’ s claims “ meritless ” and said the price of online advertising has fallen over the last decade .
CNN covered the major lawsuit and dropped these details : Texas and nine other states sued Google on Wednesday , alleging that the company has stifled competition and enjoys “ monopolistic power.
” The complaint is the latest attack on the search giant and its dominance in online advertising .
It alleges that Google abuses its ownership of digital ad marketplaces @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of fair competition .
The lawsuit claims that Google ’ s behavior has stifled innovation and harmed publishers , advertisers and consumers .
“ This goliath of a company is using its power to manipulate the market , destroy competition and harm you , the consumer , ” Paxton said in a video accompanying the tweet .
The nine other states participating in the suit include Kentucky , South Dakota , Arkansas , Idaho , Indiana , Mississippi , Missouri , North Dakota and Utah .
NATIONAL POLL : Should President Trump Fire @ @ @ @ @ @ @

We may receive compensation from affiliate partners for some links on this site. Read our full Disclosure here
2,967 views
Do you trust Google?
Well, Texas, Kentucky, South Dakota, Arkansas, Idaho, Indiana, Mississippi, Missouri, North Dakota, and Utah don’t trust Google and are filing a lawsuit stating that the company is a “monopolistic power”.
The lawsuit also states that the search giant is “anti-competitive ” when it comes to online advertising, and even struck a deal to manipulate sales with Facebook.
Ten states brought a lawsuit against Google, accusing the search giant of "anti-competitive conduct" in the online advertising industry, including a deal to manipulate sales with rival Facebook. https://t.co/qvvPjpW23o — CBS This Morning (@CBSThisMorning) December 17, 2020
10 Red States – led by Texas AG #Paxton – are suing Internet behemoth #Google due to its alleged attempts to "manipulate the market" and "destroy its competition" by concocting an agreement with social media rival #Facebook over advertising. https://t.co/1qomqkh1Of — i24NEWS English (@i24NEWS_EN) December 17, 2020
From last night: 10 US states are now suing Google claiming it illegally manipulates online ad auctions, harming news content providers. Here's our @BBCBusiness piece by @shermannatalie and me 📱: https://t.co/kEAXiFkoWT — Mary-Ann Russon (@concertina226) December 17, 2020
CBS News covered the lawsuit, let’s see what they had to share:
Ten states on Wednesday brought a lawsuit against Google, accusing the search giant of “anti-competitive conduct” in the online advertising industry, including a deal to manipulate sales with rival Facebook. Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton announced the suit, which was filed in a federal court in Texas, saying Google is using its “monopolistic power” to control pricing of online advertisements, fixing the market in its favor and eliminating competition. “This Goliath of a company is using its power to manipulate the market, destroy competition, and harm you, the consumer,” Paxton said in the video posted on Twitter. Google, which is based in Mountain View, California, called Paxton’s claims “meritless” and said the price of online advertising has fallen over the last decade.
Attorneys general from 10 states sued Google on Wednesday for alleged antitrust violations related to its ad stack, popularly known as DoubleClick. https://t.co/9tPkAi0Pxt — Adweek (@Adweek) December 17, 2020
WATCH: Texas and nine other states sued Google, accusing it of illegally working with Facebook to boost its already-dominant online advertising business https://t.co/94Muo6YE7X pic.twitter.com/Wld73WveFv — Reuters Business (@ReutersBiz) December 17, 2020
CNN covered the major lawsuit and dropped these details:
Texas and nine other states sued Google on Wednesday, alleging that the company has stifled competition and enjoys “monopolistic power.” The complaint is the latest attack on the search giant and its dominance in online advertising. It alleges that Google abuses its ownership of digital ad marketplaces to unfairly enrich itself at the expense of fair competition.
The lawsuit claims that Google’s behavior has stifled innovation and harmed publishers, advertisers and consumers. “This goliath of a company is using its power to manipulate the market, destroy competition and harm you, the consumer,” Paxton said in a video accompanying the tweet. The nine other states participating in the suit include Kentucky, South Dakota, Arkansas, Idaho, Indiana, Mississippi, Missouri, North Dakota and Utah.